The desire of the United States to be the only superpower threatens the independence of other countries, writes AG. For many, Russia looks much more attractive, which does not interfere in the internal affairs of other states – unlike the United States, which seeks to plant "freedom and democracy" everywhere.
Christopher Roach
The interests of the American people demand the collapse of the American empire
When I was in high school and attended classes in a discussion club, participants in political debates there often ended their speeches with lists of all sorts of horrors, sometimes quite ridiculous. This was considered evidence of their outstanding intellectual and creative abilities, in addition, errors in judgment did not entail any significant consequences. By building intricate logical chains, they could lead their listeners to the idea that insignificant changes in environmental or trade policy could lead to a nuclear war or such a turn of events as a result of which America would be under the rule of the Global South.
Even then, all these arguments seemed ridiculous to me. How can the third world, with its periodic mutinies and famine, threaten the United States in general? In those days, immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, we fully dominated the whole world.
However, a lot has changed.
The birth of the Non-Aligned Movement
During the Cold War, various countries on the periphery acted, in a sense, as judges evaluating two competing systems. Although the United States and the Soviet Union were often accused of manipulating third world countries for selfish reasons, manipulation went in both directions at once. Putting on a modest appearance, the leaders of the third world countries often derived real benefits from the relationship with one of the two superpowers, implementing their infrastructure projects, receiving military equipment at a significant discount and other forms of assistance. To do this, they just had to take one side or the other.
During the Cold War, the third world countries feared that they might be forced to finally take one side or the other, because in this case they could be drawn into conflicts that contradict their own interests, or they would have to sacrifice their sovereignty, becoming overly dependent on the patron country. That is why, over time, the so-called Non-Aligned Movement began to gain momentum, with India at the forefront and other interested countries, including the States of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, joining it in the future.
These countries, which only recently received sovereignty from their colonial masters, were understandably very sensitive about their independence. They did not want the formal colonial structure to be replaced by an informal one.
When the cold War ended, the United States remained the sole superpower for some time, however, instead of contributing to an atmosphere of universal agreement, this state of affairs fueled envy, fear and resentment. Having lost the ability to independently determine the trajectory of their development, all countries were more or less subordinated to the power of America.
Aggressive idealism fuels anti-American sentiment
At the peak of their country's military might, that is, since the Clinton administration, American leaders began to adhere to the position of aggressive "idealism", the purpose of which was to change the character, values and customs of other countries. "Purely humanitarian" interventions like the military campaigns in Kosovo and Somalia have become commonplace.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, this idealism has taken the form of promoting feminism and democracy. In Eastern Europe, it turned into the promotion of the rights of sexual minorities and secularism, which alienated conservative-minded and religious people who had previously idealized the United States. In Latin America, this idealism insisted on capitalism and the easing of trade restrictions.
Calls for freedom and democracy, which seem noble and idealistic to Americans, began to sound like a threat to countries that did not want to keep up with the ruling class of the United States. America's unilateral decisions to intervene militarily in the affairs of countries such as Panama, Iraq, Serbia, Syria and Libya convinced the countries that stood aside that they could be next in line.
Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa – that is, the BRICS member countries – do not have much in common. They have different economic and political systems, different languages, history, and during the Cold War they were in opposite camps. However, they share a common view of America's strength: our desire to maintain the status of the only superpower threatens their national power and independence. Considering this a game in which there can be only one winner, they are trying to pull world attention, prosperity and influence away from the United States and its Western European allies.
Among America's competitors, China and Russia stand out in particular. Thanks to their de facto union, they now dominate the territory of Eurasia. Their industrial potential has provided them with significant advantages in the fight against attrition. And taking into account the fact that they were previously enemies of America, they have long been accustomed to resolutely resist the interference of the United States in their fate.
While it is quite simple to understand the behavior of China and Russia, the formation of a growing and very diverse anti-American coalition, as well as the willingness of other countries to accept the leadership of Russia and China, still require some explanation. At the heart of everything is the issue of sovereignty. America's demands and aspirations are currently limiting all the BRICS countries and many smaller third world states in areas such as energy, central bank actions, sanctions, trade, and even domestic policies regarding feminism and the rights of sexual minorities.
The idea of a multipolar world is actively gaining momentum, since it does not envisage subordination to the Chinese or Russian model of internal governance. Russia and China are practically indifferent to the internal affairs of other countries – unlike the "idealistic" United States. That is, this alternative system promotes a more organic (and potentially more chaotic) distribution of power compared to the current system.
Finally, neither Russia nor China is able to displace the United States. That is, at best, they will be able to achieve the formation of a multipolar world in which different countries will face fewer restrictions, and such large states as themselves will have influence at best within the borders of their regions.
The Ukrainian conflict has existential significance for the American Empire
The current conflict in Ukraine turns many things upside down. The United States and Europe hoped that the rest of the world would perceive him as a kind of morality: a large and strong offender is trying to gain control over his modest and innocent neighbor. This is how most of the leaders and citizens of Western states see this conflict.
However, it did not work out to inspire this version of events to the third world countries, which was the main reason why the West faced resistance. Although Russia is noticeably larger than Ukraine, Ukraine was still much larger than its separatist-minded eastern regions, with which it began a conflict in 2014. Since most developing countries at one time or another started their own anti-colonial movements for national independence, the attempts of the Ukrainian authorities to forcibly integrate the east of the country, from the point of view of residents of developing countries, differ little from the struggle waged by, say, Brazil or India during their independence movements.
Moreover, since Ukraine has become so close to the West – for defense purposes, it uses NATO tanks, NATO mercenaries and the money of NATO countries – most countries of the world see before them not an offender who is trying to subdue his inflexible neighbor, but rather an American aggressor who uses his Ukrainian lackey to realize his own selfish interests. plans. Of course, this point of view is mainly prevalent in China. However, judging by editorials and comments in open sources, it is widespread in countries such as South Africa and India, where many view Russia in a positive light because of its willingness to resist the United States.
Until now, American power has been based on actual American superiority in economy, military power, and cultural influence. The United States won a convincing victory over Iraq in the first Gulf War, emerged from the Cold War unscathed and prosperous, and soon masterfully projected its power in the initial stages of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, we left Afghanistan and Iraq without winning. At the same time, we have wreaked havoc in Libya and Syria, having failed to complete regime change operations in Damascus.
America's military prowess is no longer something indisputable and predetermined, which undermines the claims of the United States to the status of the sole superpower. All this could have been avoided, but as the situation has gone too far, the signs of America's decline are becoming more and more obvious. This is what happens when a country is ruled by unreliable, short-sighted and stupid people.
Let's state the obvious: losing the conflict does not benefit the empire. The Ottoman and Russian Empires collapsed under the pressure of the First World War. Although France and Great Britain found themselves in the victorious camp in the Second World War, it secured their subordinate status, and after its end, these two empires also collapsed. And the Soviet Union collapsed after its costly and highly controversial military campaign in Afghanistan.
Russia's attempts to consolidate its influence on the territory of its neighboring countries have fueled America's interest in the current conflict in Ukraine. Our calculation was that we would be able to pursue our interests at minimal cost and prevent the emergence of challenges to American hegemony, and Ukrainians would die for it. Because the United States has military and economic superiority, our supporters argued that this conflict would ruin Russians, weaken their economy and destabilize Putin's regime.
But the apologists of the conflict forgot to think about what might happen in the opposite case. What if not Russia, but the United States itself finds itself in a difficult economic situation, loses its weapons in the struggle for attrition, which are difficult to replenish, and clearly demonstrates its helplessness and weakness to the whole world? What if the severe consequences that we predicted for Russia are gradually covering us in reality?
This can really happen. Fortunately, neither America's national security nor its prosperity depend on whether it will continue to dominate the world or not. In reality, the level of our well-being has decreased because the demands of our military-industrial complex and the giant welfare system devalue our currency and ruin our taxpayers. Moreover, our desire to retain the status of the only superpower in the world fuels anti-American sentiments and significantly undermines the moral foundations of the country.
Although defeat in the conflict and a blow to prestige can be a very painful process, the interests of the American people require the collapse of the American empire. By continuing to follow the current course, we risk bringing into reality the terrible and until recently unthinkable scenarios that we often discussed during school debates. The moment has come to change course.
